Not Yours to Give

[kandrathe]

...
I'm not sure I understand you, here. For that to happen, you'd have to completely gut government services - many of which have little to do with Welfare.

No, you set the level of services at merely what is needed, rather than what is wanted.

Take education for instance. I know you'd love to see people pay for the schooling of their own children, but if that were to happen, then just like with my road, there would be consequences down the road. Some people would simply choose not to send their kids to school, then. Twenty years down the road, we'll have a generation of illiterates (Worse then the state of education now), and then we will be paying the cost. A bucket of slop a day starts adding up when half of the country can't count beyond "One, two, three, many"

That might happen. But, as I stated earlier, there were schools before the federal government decided to create the Department of Education. This topic is a hot button emotional morass suited perfectly for waste and abuse. Who can vote against helping children, and who can vote against giving kids a chance a better future? For this reason, this issue needs to be dealt with as close to the voters as possible, meaning at the local level, or possibly at the State level. At the federal level, in regards to education, health, and welfare, you are promoting socialism and the redistribution of wealth. My belief is that it is not governments role to take money by force of law from the middle class, and give it to the poor.

It's harm... With a benefit following it. The two are tied. The question is "How much harm and to whom, and how much benefit, and to whom."

It is harm. And, then my question is; Is it just to harm some to help others?

Can't agree less. Look at the USSR, or China. You can't call that socialism. And likewise, for the other direction, it seems to be a pretty damn long 'transitory' state. There's no "Party," here. When it dwelves into Really Stupid Ideas, it's the fault of the voters.

My take on Russia is that it idealistically tried to jump into communism, and then Stalin seized the opportunity to become the dictator. After that, it was a matter of time before corruption and apathy would unravel it. China is a different story. It has always been a quasi-communistic society, even under the rule of ancient dynasties. It is now emerging from communism into socialism, and in some ways is far more embracing of Capitalism than Europe. From my perspective, Europe has all but abandoned a free market economy and the US/Canada are close on their heals. These transitions take centuries.

I will give a somewhat obtuse example, but perhaps you can see the point of it. There is a law passed here that now requires businesses to allow access to private restroom facilities if certain store patrons require one. H.F. No. 1015 If they deny access to someone who requires access to the businesses private restroom, the business owner and the employees who denied the access are guilty of a petty misdemeanor. When the government starts to step into the private sector and regulate what can and cannot happen on private property, all is lost. When the government can tell a bar owner that they cannot allow smoking in their business, for the sake of the health of the patrons and employees, all is lost. We are losing our freedoms one law at a time. This is how socialism erodes into communism. You may not see it over a few years, but given time the state will own or control all property.